Why Some Conservatives Like Liberal Radio Network
Useful Idiots?
Some On Right May Want Air America To Stick Around
Of our efforts to expose Air America's sleazy Enron-like corporate behavior, is it safe to assume conservatives are united in support?
To a point, yes.
There certainly are some, though, who'd rather not see this investigative effort become too successful. That's because the liberal radio network's programming has gone so far off the deep left end, it's now a GOP gold mine.
By the same token, would Republicans want Rep. Jim McDermott of Seattle, or Sen. Ted Kennedy defeated? While having no impact on national political trends, the moonbat wing of the Democrat party provides a bounty of choice quotes for fundraising letters, making the answer a firm "no".
Primo case-in-point: Air America Host/rapper Chuck D's (one of the black hosts network co-founder Sheldon Drobny couldn't name on C-SPAN) support for Louis Farrakhan's assertion whites blew up levees to wipe out the black population in New Orleans.
This via NewsMax:
Two hosts at the liberal radio network Air America are defending Nation of Islam leader Minister Louis Farrakhan - saying he's not wrong to suspect that white people deliberately blew up the levees in New Orleans.
"You cannot blame people for coming up with conspiracy theories," Air America host Chuck D. said, after he was asked Thursday about the paranoid pronouncement by MSNBC's Tucker Carlson.
"They look on television and see that the government is four days late in saving people [who are] supposed to be their citizens," Chuck D. explained.
Carlson gave him a second chance to denounce Farrakhan's lunatic declaration, saying, "You're a smart guy. You know that white people didn't blow up the levees to kill black people. You've gotta know that didn't happen."
But the Air America host refused to budge, insisting instead that there was a chance Farrakhan could be right....
It gets worse:
After failing to persuade Chuck D., the MSNBC host turned to panelist Rachel Maddow, who also hosts a show on Air America.
Asked if she believed that white people deliberately destroyed the levees, Maddow declined to render a personal judgment - and instead defended the sentiment behind the toxic hypothesis.
The MSNBC transcript is available here.
It's one thing to hear Chuck D saying what's not much different than today's typical rap lyrics, but Rachel Maddow? She's the one held up by Air America supporters as intellectually superior, yet here looks moronic.
While these kooky conspiratorial comments (which oddly seem to fit Sheldon Drobny's fringe LaRouchian leanings) do boost conservative support, we can't overlook sleazy behavior of epic proportions simply for the sake of easier Republican fundraising pitches.
The fodder will have to come from somewhere else, I'm afraid.
Your Amazon orders help to support this site's efforts. Thanks!
AAR/Scandal graphic by Darleen Click.
Some On Right May Want Air America To Stick Around
Of our efforts to expose Air America's sleazy Enron-like corporate behavior, is it safe to assume conservatives are united in support?
To a point, yes.There certainly are some, though, who'd rather not see this investigative effort become too successful. That's because the liberal radio network's programming has gone so far off the deep left end, it's now a GOP gold mine.
By the same token, would Republicans want Rep. Jim McDermott of Seattle, or Sen. Ted Kennedy defeated? While having no impact on national political trends, the moonbat wing of the Democrat party provides a bounty of choice quotes for fundraising letters, making the answer a firm "no".
Primo case-in-point: Air America Host/rapper Chuck D's (one of the black hosts network co-founder Sheldon Drobny couldn't name on C-SPAN) support for Louis Farrakhan's assertion whites blew up levees to wipe out the black population in New Orleans.
This via NewsMax:
Two hosts at the liberal radio network Air America are defending Nation of Islam leader Minister Louis Farrakhan - saying he's not wrong to suspect that white people deliberately blew up the levees in New Orleans.
"You cannot blame people for coming up with conspiracy theories," Air America host Chuck D. said, after he was asked Thursday about the paranoid pronouncement by MSNBC's Tucker Carlson.
"They look on television and see that the government is four days late in saving people [who are] supposed to be their citizens," Chuck D. explained.
Carlson gave him a second chance to denounce Farrakhan's lunatic declaration, saying, "You're a smart guy. You know that white people didn't blow up the levees to kill black people. You've gotta know that didn't happen."
But the Air America host refused to budge, insisting instead that there was a chance Farrakhan could be right....
It gets worse:
After failing to persuade Chuck D., the MSNBC host turned to panelist Rachel Maddow, who also hosts a show on Air America.Asked if she believed that white people deliberately destroyed the levees, Maddow declined to render a personal judgment - and instead defended the sentiment behind the toxic hypothesis.
The MSNBC transcript is available here.
It's one thing to hear Chuck D saying what's not much different than today's typical rap lyrics, but Rachel Maddow? She's the one held up by Air America supporters as intellectually superior, yet here looks moronic.
While these kooky conspiratorial comments (which oddly seem to fit Sheldon Drobny's fringe LaRouchian leanings) do boost conservative support, we can't overlook sleazy behavior of epic proportions simply for the sake of easier Republican fundraising pitches.
The fodder will have to come from somewhere else, I'm afraid.
Your Amazon orders help to support this site's efforts. Thanks!
AAR/Scandal graphic by Darleen Click.
published by Brian Maloney at
00:19
6 Comments:
In the same vein, Ed Schultz claimed on Friday's show that Conservatives were "rooting for the hurricane, because more devastation meant more no-bid contracts".
Hate Radio, indeed...
By
BF, at 19 September, 2005 09:31
Yes, good points. We can criticize the likes of Michael Moore and Howard Dean but to some extent these libs HELPED us because they showed the far left
was taking over the Dem. party, and some "in the middle" could only shake their heads and vote for Bush.
Also it made sure to bring out the conservative base of the GOP: people who said "there's no way I can let these people get into power...again".
There were a lot more "Democrats for Bush" than "Republicans for Kerry" last year. Perhaps a repeat of the
"Reagan Democrat" factor? The conservative wing of the Dems has fallen away from the party and either become GOP or independent,
and the more the moonbats howl, the more of them defect.
By
raccoonradio, at 19 September, 2005 11:09
Brian -
The Rachel Maddow remarks aren't in the transcript.
And the others seem a little - well, toned down.
Can you post a COMPLETE transcript?
By
Peter Porcupine, at 19 September, 2005 11:44
Outlaw:
Just because the President's approval is low, don't confuse that with a low approval of conservatism and / or the Republican party. A good number of my friends (me included) are upset with Bush at the moment because we think he's playing waaaay too soft with the Dems.
By
Anonymous, at 19 September, 2005 23:07
>>If anyone who is rational does listen they will be driven away
A friend of mine who's in radio and who has opinions to the left of mine
said he tried AAR and couldn't stand it. Just poorly done. And the same sentiments were said by the GM/owner
of a Boston-area station (running
standards); a person whom I've heard on talk shows, and in many respects he sounds liberal...anyway, the GM/owner
came right out and said AAR is just poorly done radio. (Ironically enough, his station picked up
listeners when Boston's WXKS
went from standards to AAR...people
who wanted easy listening instead
of Franken soon discovered HIS station!)_
By
raccoonradio, at 20 September, 2005 03:11
i'm a left-winger, and i can't stand the fact this would be said. it's no better than rush's "them liberals wanted a hurricane!" remark, but the difference is that these people on the radio claim to be better than Rush, but fail to do so.
By
Matt, at 23 September, 2005 22:16
Post a Comment
<< Home